Kerala High Court
Kerala State Electricity Board vs Kanakamma on 11 October, 2012
Author: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
Bench: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/19TH ASWINA 1934
CRP.No. 220 of 2010 ( )
-----------------------
OP(ELE)132/2005 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ALAPPUZHA.
==============
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
-------------------------
KANAKAMMA, W/O. LATE JAYADEVAN,
JAYA BHAVANAM, NADUBHAGOM MURI
THYCATTUSSERRY VILLAGE, THYCATTUSSERRY.P.O.
CHERTHALA TALUK.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SD
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
---------------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.220 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2012
ORDER
The Kerala State Electricity Board is in revision. The petitioner board cut and removed certain improvements of the property owned by the respondent for the purpose of drawing 110 KV electric line. The authorised officer of the petitioner board prepared a mahazar and fixed a price for the agricultural produce by taking a multiplier and making certain deductions, paid compensation which was received by the respondent. Later, the respondent approached the District Court, Alappuzha, for enhancing the compensation. After hearing the objections from the petitioner, the learned District Judge granted an additional compensation of `68,630/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cutting till realisation. The said order is under challenge in this petition.
2. Arguments have been heard. The impugned order as well as the records were perused.
CRP 220/2010 :2:
3. Going through the impugned order, I notice that the learned District Judge has awarded compensation for the coconut trees cut and removed from the property of the respondent following a dictum laid by the Full Bench of this Court in Kumba Amma v. K.S.E.B (2000 (1) KLT 542 (F.B.). The learned District Judge placed reliance on a schedule filed by the respondent, calculating compensation on the basis of 5% return as per parks table. It is relevant to note that the petitioner board has not filed any objection and accordingly, the same was accepted. It was found by the learned District Judge that the respondent is entitled to get a sum of `68,629.56 more as compensation for the trees cut and removed.
4. The grievance voiced against the impugned order is that the decision of this Court in Kumba Amma' case (cited supra) was practically overruled later by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.E.B v. Livisha (2007 (3) KLT 1 (SC). It is true that it was observed by the Apex Court that the situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small CRP 220/2010 :3:
track of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors would be determinative in fixing the compensation. It was also observed that the value of the land would also be a relevant factor. It is relevant to note in the case on hand that a Commissioner was deputed by the trial court who filed a report. To the Commissioner's report also there was no objections filed by the petitioner. Though the compensation for the trees cut and removed was calculated on the basis of 5% return, it cannot be said that the learned District Judge has not taken into account the factors made mention of by the Apex Court in Livisha's case (cited supra). So, I see no genuine reason to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Judge.
5. The further argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that, the amount awarded by the learned District Judge towards diminution of land is on the higher side. We see force in the said submission because the learned District Judge has relied on Ext.A1 for arriving at the value of the property. Ext.A1 property is situated in the same village. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.A1 property is having road access, while the CRP 220/2010 :4:
petitioner's property is not similarly situated. In the light of the aforesaid fact, I am of the definite view that the value of the property fixed by learned District Judge appears to be on the higher side. Hence on this aspect, the impugned order call for interference and reconsideration.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order in O.P(Ele.) No.132/2005 of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha, so far as it relates to the diminution of land value is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Additional District Court, Alappuzha for fresh consideration regarding the amount of compensation payable to the respondent towards diminution of the land value, after affording both sides an opportunity to adduce evidence. The learned District Judge shall dispose of the O.P within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before the court below.
Parties shall mark appearance before the Additional District Court, Alappuzha, on 01/11/2012.
sd/-
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
krj